It dramatically lowered the costs of broadcasting information. At the time, we idealistically felt that would enable people of all means to communicate, and not just the rich and powerful. It did that, especially in the early days before the rich and powerful noticed.
But it lowers the costs for everyone, including the rich. So once they clued in, it ended up empowering them too. In fact, it preferentially benefits them, because they have more money to throw at it.
There is a useful cautionary lesson here: any technology that reduces the cost of X for all users of X is not a force of equality. Instead, it is a multiplier to any existing disparity.
If you want to reduce inequality, focus on technology that does not scale up and instead is preferentially empowering to those on the low end of the scale.
For example, medicine tends to be an equalizer because once you're healthy, having more access to the same medicine doesn't benefit you much. There is a natural upper limit to its efficacy. (Of course, being able to control others' access to medicine does scale up.)
In times before, news distribution was subject to editorial process and basic standards of journalism. Not that it wasn't without own issues, but it helped sort out outright lunacy, bigotry and conspiracy theories.
Distribution in 2010s bypasses that and mass media are now secondary to social network rumour mills. The political outcomes worldwide and deterioration of Western democracies are related to this.